|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 4:35 pm: | 
|
How
Halal would be most relevant, given the circumstances. Not that I approve, as a vegetarian ... (cue another volley of abuse from Ally, probably).
But of course you're right that it could only leak, with no blood pressure to pump it out, and much of the blood having been drained from the body.
My only direct experience is with pigs' lungs, provided from the abbattoir - for scientific purposes, I hasten to add. Rather like giant pink marshmallows. For obvious reasons, our bodily organs are impervious to blood, unless somebody makes a hole in them.
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 693
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
The reason I think he might have wanted to take the apron piece with him to wipe his hands, rather than just wipe them on the victims clothing when finished mutilating, is the following. When the Ripper finishes mutilating a victim, he either stops because he's satisfied his urge or because he's been forced to flee.
If he's been forced to flee in the past, as what may have happened with Nichols and Stride (if you include Stride, which is not a sure thing of course), then cutting the apron before mutilating the victim may have been an insurance policy so to speak (hmmm, this could be added to my list - what he's learned from previous murders).
Now, if he leaves a scene because he's satisified his urge, I would think the next most important drive is to escape. Distance himself from the location as soon as possible. He's already taken a risk by sticking around to mutilate the victim, so now it's time to get out of there. Wiping his hands on the victims clothes requires that he stays in the location of the crime, taking the apron means he can leave the immediate vicinity and clean himself up a bit.
My assumption is that it would take more than a quick wipe to clean his hands after a murder, and that the Ripper wants to avoid capture. And, to avoid capture he needs to
1) get the blood off himself
2) get away from the scene as quickly as possible
Taking a piece of cloth with himself satisfies both of those goals. Staying to wipe his hands would satisfy the first, but not the 2nd (he has to remain at the scene even longer).
So, it seems to me, that taking the apron simply to serve the functional role of cleaning up while allowing him to distance himself from the scene immediately, seems to be a reasonable idea to consider. It's less dramatic and more mundane than some explanations, but I think that's why it appeals to me; it sounds like "real life events".
- Jeff |
Ken Proctor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Gizmo
Post Number: 111
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 5:03 pm: |
|
Hello All, Far be it from me to classify myself as a butcher but i have had considerable experience in field dressing an animal. You use your free hand to feel between flesh and organs so as to assist your knife hand in the cutting process. Even in broad daylight it is sooooooo easy to cut your freehand in the process. If your knife is razor sharp you wont even feel the cut nor notice any distinction betwwen the animals blood and yours on your hand. I believe there is the possibility that Jack may have needed that piece of apron as a temporary bandage and if so, oh what the D.N.A. could tell us now. 
"Hey Rookie----You were good" (Field Of Dreams)
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2525
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
More complications from Apron-World.
The women of Whitechapel made their aprons as best they could:
‘Prisoner. The prosecutrix said I had better go home, as she expected her lodger to come in - she has always been in the habit of having bad characters there; her son was in the House of Correction - and the apron she has on now was made out of the shirt given him when he came out.’
Perhaps Jack just wanted his shirt back? |
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 44
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Ken,
So if he used his off hand to help tear the apron as we was cutting at it, his off hand would be the one getting a lot of the blood on it. If he was using that to pull/move organs as well as grabbing at the apron, he would get blood on it (the apron) without intentionally wiping his hand.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 980
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Ken...
The internal heat from the body [ deer or bear ] will anesthetize your hand,just as a high speed machine blade can cut you and you'll have to be told you've been cut..I know that feeling !
Chris...
I think that the kidney [ which is as small as your palm or mine ] would not be as prone to leak as much as a liver or heart [ obviously ]. As you stated, without any "pumping", it would basically be dormant and without a lot of thrashing about or movement by a handler, would drip, but not at a considerable rate.
So....maybe we ought to go check into that with a butcher.
I'd stick with using a pig. |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 18
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 8:21 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
When the Ripper finishes mutilating a victim, he either stops because he's satisfied his urge or because he's been forced to flee.
A valid point, but it begs a rather more crucial question. Which action requires more time; the hand-wiping process, or the removal of a portion of apron? I would suggest that the former would be far simpler to acheive, for expediency's sake at least.
To all,
If we accept it as an irrefutable fact that the ripper departed Mitre Square with a portion of Eddows' apron, would it not seem bafflingly illogical for him to sully his pockets with the viscera he clearly removed?
Why ruin your trouser pockets when you have a wonderfully convenient apron?
Kate Eddows' apron would have facilitated the swift concealment of a multitude of grisly sins. Surely it is only logical to infer that JTR must have availed himself of such an opportunity?
On a seperate point, I remain uncertain as to how one would discern a "smear" from any other variety of blood/faecal deposit.
If JTR merely "pocketed" the viscera, why couldn't he have wiped his hands in his pockets or trousers? Why remove a portion of apron?
(Message edited by BenH on September 15, 2005) |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 694
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 9:44 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
I guess I'm working on the assumption that the cutting/tearing of the apron piece would take much less time than the wiping of the hands (i.e., between fingers, etc). As such, cleaning the hands (to this extent) would take more time than cutting the apron. I would suspect that the cutting of the apron would take (for all practicle considerations) the same amount of time as wiping his hands on the victims intact clothes. This, however, would not really clean his hands all that well, which means simple wiping on the victims garments doesn't satisfy the goal of cleaning the hands (to the extent that I'm talking about).
I admit quite fully, of course, that there's no proof that Jack was concerned about cleaning his hands (he doesn't appear to have used the water at Annie Chapman's crime scene, for example). However, that could be telling us that he normall had something with him which allowed him to clean up as he left the location. This, of course, gets back to my highly speculative suggestion that perhaps with Eddowes he had to take the apron because he had already used his cleaning up cloth after killing Stride. This, and I want to stress this, is only one of many explanations. I personally am not convinced Stride was a Ripper victim, but nor am I convinced she wasn't one. This is just one of those ideas that sort of ties the two crimes together, but only in a completely theoretical way. It's all based upon possible links and not through any observed links (not through data, only through missing data).
Anyway, that said, I can see why it makes sense for the Ripper to use the apron to carry the organs. However, why didn't he do the same thing with Chapman, where he also took organs and flesh away? And, why did he then discard the wrapper but not the organs? Why remove the organs after they have been safely concealed? If the apron hadn't been found, then I would prefer the idea that he used it to transport the organs. It's the fact that he appears to have thrown the apron away that, to me, makes this explanation less appealing.
However, it's not clear that the apron had to be discarded before the Ripper had returned to his home location. So, if he had made it home, then he may have deposited the organs, and took the apron out and tossed it away. The description we have of how blood soaked the apron was doesn't fit will with the idea of it being used to carry internal bits, but at the same time, the description we have is a bit vague and we can't really be sure just how much blood etc was on it.
Anyway, there are problems, I think, with all the explanations.
One solution might be that he carried something that he used to carry away trophies (body parts), and only needed the apron to clean his hands? That would solve the "why ruin your pockets with the organs if you have the apron" problem. Also, keeping my "link to Stride" theory going for the fun of it, we know he would not have had to use this "organ container" after killing Stride, but might have had to get blood off his hands/knife (so he used and discarded his cleaning up rag). So, with Eddowes, he now needs a new "clean up rag" but not a new "organ carrying thing".
Ok, I'm way out on a speculative limb here, but it's easy to do when there's so little real information to work with.
So, I admit, there is no proof the apron piece was used to clean his hands, and there is no proof that the apron piece was used to carry the organs he took, and there is no proof that the apron piece was discarded before Jack reached his home-base, and there is no proof that Stride and Eddowes were killed by the same person. All we really have is that on the one night when there are two murders, after the 2nd murder, a piece of clothing was removed from the victim and later found discarded. Moreover, from what we know, this is the only murder in which a piece of the victims clothing was cut and taken away. For what purpose, and why in this one case was such an act done, is unknown and the reasons can only be speculated at. I've presented one line of speculation that I think does not read too outrageously.
- Jeff |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 266
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 2:11 am: |
|
Lots of intelligent propositions and theories here. Let me just reiterate for clarity.
a) people at the time investigated the piece of apron and found two ways blood had been deposited on the piece.
b) one such way blood was deposited indicated it being smeared on the apron, and it was even stated it was probably through wiping of hands or knife.
c) another piece of the apron was wet with blood, indicating contact with a considerable amount of blood.
These stains seem to me to be:
1) inconsistent with any blood seeping off any organs.
2) for much the same reason inconsistent with having being wrapped around any injured (bleeding) hand.
3) consistent with hands and/or knife being wiped off on the apron.
4) consistent with the apron coming in contact with a pool of blood, or perhaps massive bleeding directly from a wound.
These are the facts as I see it. What the people at he time reported we should be VERY careful not to contradict (although I'm sure we may disagree on interpretation), what conclusions I have drawn about the blood on the apron seems clear cut (pun intended) to me, but should be established through further research.
Now everything else is speculation, except that the piece was in fact part of Eddowes' apron, and that it ended up being carried from Mitre square to Goulston Street.
If I am correct about how to read the indications given by the bloodstains, then any theory should be consistent with that.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on September 16, 2005)
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 267
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 2:56 am: |
|
Oh, just a few more thoughts.
The "wet" part of the apron cannot be due to Jack simply wiping himself or handling the apron. Try this. Even if your hand looks pretty messy with blood, it usually does not leave that much wet blood on anything you handle. More like smears.
Neither did the contemporary investigators notice any bloody handprints on the piece of apron. I'm not talking about fingerprints, but simple indications of a bloody hand handling it.
Food for though?
In effect, Jack may allready have wiped his hands when he started handling it...
Helge
(Message edited by helge on September 16, 2005)
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 268
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 3:05 am: |
|
AP,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It is quite possible that the wet blood on the apron was due to blood from the actual attack/mutilations. What I find it NOT to be consistent with is the carrying of organs.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1875
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 4:22 am: |
|
Helge, Chris,
Chris,
True, but wouldn’t the way the kidney was handled depend on how much blood ‘oozes’ out? I ask out of ignorance, not awkwardness.
Helge,
The knife would have been easier to explain away than an apron piece belonging to the victim…….just. This only because the apron is a direct link to the victim and I suppose that the stop/search PC would have had to have know about the murder and then the knife would have a significant importance so …..
…contrived you say?? Mmmmm, I see what you mean.
Re hand wiping.
All the way from Mitre square to Goulston Street? Its really not that far. And seeing the main objective is to escape a decent distance first rather than hang around near the scene wiping hands, well is the scenario that implausible?
Monty
PS Helge, just read
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It is quite possible that the wet blood on the apron was due to blood from the actual attack/mutilations. What I find it NOT to be consistent with is the carrying of organs.
Idea just hit me. Would the placing of the organs by the side of the body, on top of the apron piece on the floor, cause the effect seen?
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 5:19 am: |
|
G'day,
HOWARD: 'Leanne:
I'm sorry lassie !! I misunderstood your point.
What you are positing is that the Ripper had a package with him before and during the time he was murdering Eddowes...took the package home in the interval of time before he went to Goulston Street...left the grip at his house....and then went to the Wentworth...correct?'
That's right Howard. For the Ripper to have had a package with him during his 'feast' in Mitre Square, and to believe that he had just fled from Dutfield's Yard, we must assume that he had the package with him all the time or quickly picked it up on the way from somewhere he left it. So let's look closer at the man that was seen near Stride's murder scene with a package!
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1855
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 5:29 am: |
|
G'day,
Below is an old post of mine from 'Liz Stide - The Murder, Archive through Jan 10 2004':
'Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 5:53 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G'day,
'The Jack the Ripper A-Z' mentions on page 486 a man passing through Church Lane, (not to be confused with Church Passage), at 1:30 a.m. which was half an hour after the discovery of Elizabeth Stride's body. The man was described as wearing a sailor-like cap and was sitting on a doorstep wiping his hands.
The authors of 'The A-Z' believe this was likely a sighting of Stride's murderer on route to Mitre Square.
Does anyone know which newspaper reported this sighting, or any further information on it?'
I'd say that was our man!
This could have also been the man seen by P.C. Smith on Berner Street talking to Stride with a newspaper parcel in his hand!
LEANNE
(Message edited by leanne on September 16, 2005) |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 269
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
Monty,
Your proposed scenario certainly could explain why one corner was wet, and the other marks were only smeared. The apron flat on the floor close to the body could easily have come into contact with the pool of blood beneath Eddowes, and the organs just might leave marks looking like smears.
But only if they did not bleed, and I think the damaged uterus must have.
Dr Frederick Brown, the police surgeon, stated during the inquest "On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it".
Even a relatively small amount of running blood from the body parts would, IMO, have penetrated the cloth. And if the organs bled (as in oozing blood), even this scenario is inconsistent with what we know.
If they did not bleed at all, I guess what you suppose is possible. More experiments?
One scenario that came to my head thinking about this was that Jack might have used the apron to collect a number of items from the victim (apart from body parts, that is) He does seem to rob his victims for valuables. Maybe he needed time to sort it out?
Only thinking out loud. After all, Eddowes was carrying a lot of stuff, maybe he fancied some of it?
But even this seems a bit contrived to me. If he discarded the apron and (it would seem) kept it all, he must have had room in his pockets anyway.. So why bother with the apron at all?
I guess he most likely did wipe his hands. Question is why the apron ended up in Goulston Street.
Maybe he just fancied carrying it there..we might never know. Personally I think he had a plan...
Oh, by the way, the description does seem to imply several stains all over the one side of cloth, not consistent with only two items being placed there.
Unless two marks counts as several.
Sorry Mate.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4021
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
Good thinking here, guys, and a lot of interesting suggestions. I agree with most of Helge's thoughts here and I think Monty's suggestion certainly is food for thoughts.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 19
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 8:33 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Anyway, that said, I can see why it makes sense for the Ripper to use the apron to carry the organs. However, why didn't he do the same thing with Chapman, where he also took organs and flesh away?
Two possible explnations present themselves here. The distance between 29 Hanbury Street and the ripper's home may have been considerably shorter that the distance between Mitre Square and "home".
It is equally plausible, however, that the ripper adopted a trial-and-error mentality towards the murders. In other words, he learned from previous mistakes and so "progressed". He became more efficient, and demonstrably, more brutal.
I don't belive for a moment that the ripper used the return journey as a hand-wiping opportunity. This would surely have aroused far more suspicion - should he have been spotted - that a wrapped apron.
Hi Helge,
c) another piece of the apron was wet with blood, indicating contact with a considerable amount of blood.
Is this not entirely consistent with close contact to a bodily organ? |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 270
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 8:58 am: |
|
Glenn,
Your opinion is, as always, highly appreciated.
Ben,
"Is this not entirely consistent with close contact to a bodily organ?"
Yes it is, sort of. But you see the location is wrong. If you place, carry, or wrap an organ (or in this case two) in a piece of cloth this size there are no way you are going to end up with only one corner saturated with blood.
Had the apron had several spots of blood on it, consistent with having been folded around something bloody, I would myself have leaped to the conclusion that the organs were carried in the apron.
But there were no such spots.
Had the apron been used as a primitive sort of bag, there would be one huge blood stain about in the middle of it. I would also then think it was used to carry the organs.
But there were no such bloodstain.
Instead there were blood smeared over one side "as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it".
The important factor is that it looked like smeared blood, and had NOT penetrated the cloth!
Only in a corner were the apron "wet with blood".
I see no "carrying technique" that correspond to that set of bloodstains, hence I believe nothing (at least nothing bloody) was carried in the apron at all.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1877
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
Ben,
It is equally plausible, however, that the ripper adopted a trial-and-error mentality towards the murders. In other words, he learned from previous mistakes and so "progressed". He became more efficient, and demonstrably, more brutal.
So why not bring something to carry the organ with him?
If he learnt from previous mistakes that is.
Why the need to use an apron to carry it?
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 271
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Oh, and lest we forget what we talk about here, the piece of apron was probably at least 3 square foot or so!
Not a hankie, in other words.
http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 272
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
And in case I failed to make myself clear in my last post (which I probably did)... Jackie boy could have settled for less if he just needed to wrap up a kidney and a uterus.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 9:16 am: |
|
Helge
Had the apron been used as a primitive sort of bag, there would be one huge blood stain about in the middle of it.
But if the organs were wrapped in the apron, the location of any stain would depend how they were wrapped, wouldn't it? Though I still doubt there would necessarily be much of a stain, and I think it's more like the corner of the apron soaked up some blood from the ground.
Had the apron had several spots of blood on it, consistent with having been folded around something bloody, I would myself have leaped to the conclusion that the organs were carried in the apron.
But there were no such spots.
The blood stains on the piece of apron seem to be variously described, but Dr Brown does refer in his inquest testimony to its being "spotted with blood".
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 273
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
Chris,
"But if the organs were wrapped in the apron, the location of any stain would depend how they were wrapped, wouldn't it?"
Exactly my point.
And yes, the apron was spotted with blood. One side was in fact smeared with blood, although the exact number and location of the smears is unknown. The point is that that blood had not penetrated. Because it WAS smeared on, I guess. You don't get that if anything had been wrapped and leaked blood to produce the stains.
But, if it can be shown that the organs would not ooze any blood at all, I am wrong.
Then the blood stains come from other sources, and the organs may indeed have been wrapped in the cloth.
My point is that, as things stand, there is nothing to indicate this at all.
That is, in my laymans eyes, it seems reasonable to think the organs, especially a damaged (cut across) uterus freshly butchered, will bleed.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on September 16, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1412
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
Helge
You appear to have been saying all along that the organs couldn't have been wrapped in the apron because the pattern of bloodstains was inconsistent with this.
The point I was making is that this depends on several assumptions, not only about how much blood the organs would have left on the apron, but also about how they might have been wrapped. As you said yourself, the piece of apron was much larger than the organs. If it was laid on the ground, and the organs were placed in a corner, and then the killer rolled it up to make a parcel, any stains would necessarily be in the corner.
I'm also not sure why you say the blood didn't penetrate the cloth elsewhere. Is this explicitly stated, or are you relying on the description of the bloodstains as smears. Granted a "smear" makes it sound as though the blood didn't penetrate, but a "spot" could have done, and might well be consistent with some blood flowing out of a severed vessel.
Essentially I think there's a lot of uncertainty about the evidence, and I think it's dangerous to be too insistent about what the killer could or couldn't have done.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 274
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 10:27 am: |
|
Chris,
I have not been referring to a specific pattern, but rather to the facts that we do know about the blood stains. And the absence of a tell tale "wrap-up" pattern. I cannot follow you in believing that statements given during the inquest by professionals should be dismissed or taken to be inaccurate simply because it does not fit an opinion.
I cannot interpret what is said about the apron and the blood in such a way that it appears that the bloodstains (the smeared ones) penetrate. If you do, I would appreciate to hear your reason for doing so.
At any rate, those people were unaware of fingerprinting and DNA analysis, heck, they could not even determine if blood was human or animal, but I think they would have recognized if the apron had been wrapped around something and that blood stains had made patterns consistent with this.
The actual pattern cannot be known, but is irrelevant. We all know what kind of pattern this kind of thing would leave, and most of us would recognize it.
On the one hand it is being argued that perhaps the organs did not leak much at all, on the other that they could have soaked an entire corner, mysteriously not passing through other layers wrapped around.
Normally we would have seen spots of gradually diminishing size in such a scenario.
After all, laws of physics do apply, we are not talking about the shroud of Turin here.
(said in good humour and a spark in my eye!)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 275
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
Uh,
I actually said something...dare I say it...wrong.
The actual pattern IS known. To some extent.
"It looked as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it".
That is all we need to know. It did NOT look like something had been wrapped up in it. If it had, I'm sure the good Dr. would have told us so.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 276
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
Besides,
How much blood would (could) there be on a knife? If it looked as if a knife might have been wiped on it, we are talking about a rather limited amount of blood here.
Says I, thinking I should think more and post less..
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 20
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
I find myself in agreement with Chris on the subject of stains. The whereabouts of a tell-tale bloodstain would be entirely dependant upon the manner in which the exposed organ was wrapped, and I have trouble accepting that the location of the saturated portion (corner, middle or otherwise) bolsters or weakens the "wrapping" theory either way.
Monty,
So why not bring something to carry the organ with him?
The ripper may have intended to avail himself of his victim's garments for "removal" purposes prior to the murder.
If he took a container of sorts with him to Mitre Square, not only would it have provided an unecessary encumberance, but it would surely have aroused suspicion.
What if Eddows' had asked "What's in the box?"...? |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1413
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
Helge
I cannot follow you in believing that statements given during the inquest by professionals should be dismissed or taken to be inaccurate simply because it does not fit an opinion.
What evidence are you talking about, and who do you think is dismissing it?
I cannot interpret what is said about the apron and the blood in such a way that it appears that the bloodstains (the smeared ones) penetrate.
So is your assertion that they didn't penetrate really based mainly on the use of the word "smears"? Do you take my point about the alternative description of "spots"?
I think they would have recognized if the apron had been wrapped around something and that blood stains had made patterns consistent with this.
But did any of the witnesses say it didn't look as though the apron had had organs wrapped in it? Surely the argument from silence is a dangerous one.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 277
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
Hi, Ben
Well, maybe we should all try wrapping something then
"What if Eddows' had asked "What's in the box?"...?"
Why, Jack would have responded, "Something the girls don't like", of course!
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 278
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
Chris, I believe I said statements not evidence. There is a difference, although this is perhaps nitpicking.
No, my interpretation is based on the entire inquest and everything that is said about the apron. I see no reason to go further into this, as my interpretation clearly differs from yours, and I see no problem with that.
Except that we disagree, of course.
We are not talking about some random conversational comments on the piece of apron here, we are talking about a professional giving his opinion at an inquest and to say that there may have been something on the apron that is not mentioned gets us nowhere...
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1879
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
Ben,
Thinking more in the lines of bringing his own cloth.
Chris, Helge,
The corner was soaked in blood right?
If wrapped, and I think this is what Helge is trying to get across, there would be a regular pattern a la a car tyre through a small puddle. Tread gap tread gap tread etc.
If wrapped as tied up then the middle of the apron would be soaked not the corner wouldnt it?
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 279
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
And again, I post faster than I think.
The description of spots was in fact not used by the expert witness, but by his examiner.
So the two statements do not bear the same weight at all, after all, it was Dr Brown that had examined the apron.
Not that spots necessarily imply penetration, of course!
(Message edited by helge on September 16, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 280
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 11:14 am: |
|
Monty,
You got it!
Thanks!
Helge
(Message edited by helge on September 16, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1414
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
Monty
If wrapped, and I think this is what Helge is trying to get across, there would be a regular pattern a la a car tyre through a small puddle. Tread gap tread gap tread etc.
Perhaps I'm being slow, but I don't see what you mean at all here.
Helge
I see no reason to go further into this, as my interpretation clearly differs from yours
You'll understand it does get a bit tedious if you accuse people of believing that statements "should be dismissed or taken to be inaccurate simply because it does not fit an opinion" - and then refuse to say what statements you're talking about!
The description of spots was in fact not used by the expert witness, but by his examiner.
According to the Daily Telegraph report on this site, Dr Brown said "I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 281
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Chris,
How can it be tedious, we have only just started?
Just joking. You see, I really have quoted parts of what Dr. Brown said allready. I see no point in going over that again.
However, I guess I could also quote that Brown stated that the smears were on "one side" of the apron. To me this seem to indicate they did not penetrate.
About spots or smudges or smears, or whatever. Now THAT is getting tedious. None of the words necessarily imply penetration. And this is a non-argument as far as I'm concerned.
I see no reason why you should use words like "accuse people". I simply observe the fact that you conjure up possibilities that there may be things on the apron that were never said about the apron, thus you set aside what is known to open up possibilities that are pure speculation.
Also, I said about the statements given that they should not be "dismissed or taken to be inaccurate". I did not use the word dismissed alone. Surely you must agree that you think the statement by Dr. Brown is inaccurate if you think he overlooked something?
Just tell us why you feel the way you do, Chris. I'm listening.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Helge
You see, I really have quoted parts of what Dr. Brown said allready. I see no point in going over that again.
However, I guess I could also quote that Brown stated that the smears were on "one side" of the apron. To me this seem to indicate they did not penetrate.
I've just looked, and I can't find your previous quotations from Brown, at least in this thread (though I do see an extended argument over whether Brown referred to "smears" at all).
If you don't want to "go over that again" here, perhaps you could provide a link to your earlier posts quoting Brown.
Don't worry if you can't be bothered to, but I don't think you'll convince many people if you're so reluctant to back up your statements.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 282
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Right, the thing I positively hate is when people get like this, Chris.
This is not an argument, this is a shame for casebook!
(Didn't I quote Brown?, I'm sure I did.. At least I mentioned what he said.. Well, nobody's perfect)
If you cannot find the apropriate passages from Eddowes' inquest yourself, then that is a shame. Look it up in Evans and Skinner, then (p223 - p266). I certainly do not respond to posts of your tone with the courtesy to quote a lot of stuff. If anything I said was wrong, then say so and back it up. So far I see you ask me a lot of questions, but fail to substantiate anything of your own propositions.
Besides, I REALLY expect someone like you to know about these things (what was said at the inquest) anyway. Apparently you manage to dig up obscure newspaper clippings at least...
Consider my observations paraphrasing then, and prove me wrong if you can.
ANYONE can look up the inquest. Lets not play like children here.
Helge
PS. the reason I do not make the quote, even though I have it right in front of me is that it serves no purpose, as it is clear this particular discussion is on the wrong track and will remain there no matter what I say. Anyone can read what I read, however, and make up their own mind.
(Message edited by helge on September 16, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 283
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Oh, by the way, this was the quote I was referring to:
Dr Frederick Brown, the police surgeon, stated during the inquest "On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it".
It's there allright.. Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 6:30 am. When I use quotation marks I sometimes actually quote someone.
(Message edited by helge on September 16, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2527
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Helge
I’m just trying to make the point that ‘aprons’ had many uses and many aspects.
Liz Weaks was arrested in April 1883 with a pair of boots, pinafore and other stolen clothing ‘in’ her apron.
That’s quite a load to be carrying around in your apron.
In September of 1883 a Mrs Plaster was robbed of her husband’s pipes in Bethnal Green:
‘She had the pipes ‘in’ the pocket of her apron.’ (court transcript.)
Now to murder.
Eliza Cartwright, murdered near Wolverhampton in January 1884:
‘The apron found at the scene of the murder with a blood-stained cinder ‘in’ it.’ (court evidence.)
In this case the police felt that the murderers had ‘used the apron to drag her from where she fell’.
Other uses for aprons?
The serious assault on Harriet Benson in February 1886:
‘They tied an apron round her mouth which prevented her from screaming.’
I have found several cases where Whitechapel folk have concealed weapons in the pockets of their aprons… remember men wore aprons as well. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 284
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
AP,
Ok, I get your point. Aprons were not only aprons..
(don't expect a man to fully grasp things like that first time around)
(Message edited by helge on September 16, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Helge,
If indeed the organs were wrapped in a rather small piece of apron, how would Jack have transported them after dropping the apron?
It would make more sense to me to wrap the organs in a large handkerchief of his own so he had cover for them at all times on his way home.
The apron is without doubt a significant part of the Eddowes case, however I personally feel that there would indeed be a large amount of blood saturating the apron, since the organs were just freshly removed.
I stand by my belief that it was cut through by Jack in his haste to mutilate Eddowes and was dropped in front of the Goulston street door on purpose or accidently. That we are not sure of.
Just my opinion for whatever it is worth.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Helge
What if Eddowes asked what's in the box, and he replied Why it's
JACK IN THE BOX!
Just couldn't resist, just for a laugh, not meant as an insult or anything like that.
best regards
Julie
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Monty
Goods points! It is certainly possible that the blood on the apron was indeed from Jack placing the organs on it, very possible.
As for wiping his hands, etc, couldn't he have worn gloves? Maybe he wiped the "gloves" of with the apron. Jack was very prepared for his killings, he alluded police etc, maybe he was a doctor, who knows? If he was he certainly would have access to surgical gloves etc.
Lots to think about, so many maybe's, probably, could be's,possibilities, plausibilitys,and so on and so on.
The more the case is discussed, the more good possibilities come forth, the more information made available and certainly the more theories and circumstantial evidence brought forth by our posters here on casebook and the tireless efforts of historians and researchers, authors and great articles in various mag's brings us closer and closer to learning the truth.
Many regards
Julie
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 140
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Leanne
I don't remember the newspaper that reported this, but unless I am mistaken the guy was Richardson.
He is one who still has a small spot of suspicion surrounding him that I can't shake.
Am I right?
regards
Julie
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1416
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Helge
Oh, by the way, this was the quote I was referring to
Thank you for that, and I'm sorry I missed it.
You may like to have a look at the previous discussion in May, about whether Brown really made the comment about smears (not reported by the Telegraph).
Right, the thing I positively hate is when people get like this, Chris.
This is not an argument, this is a shame for casebook!
As far as I'm concerned, I have made every effort to be patient and remain courteous.
You seem to have tremendous problems responding in a civil manner when anyone questions your assertions.
I should have remembered your behaviour in our last exchange, over the Goulston Street Graffito. I won't be attempting any further discussion with you.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 285
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Thank you Chris!
If your present behaviour is being patient and courteous, I would not like to see you in a foul mood.
Actually, I think I have answered your pivotal questions, you answered none of mine.
And you have not even attempted to explain in any coherent way why you though I was wrong or explain why you thought as you did. Now, needless to say under such circumstances exchanging any words at all is simply futile.
I'll leave it up to others to decide for themselves who is misbehaving here. Personally I would hope you actually in the future did comment on anything I said that you thought was wrong, if only you did it in a normally courteous way.
Anyone can analyze our exchange of words here and make up their own opinion.
This is not a warzone, and I never looked for a fight. But at the same time I refuse to be bullied.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 286
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Ok, Since Chris is not on speaking terms with me, I will not direct this to him, but simply state that I do not see why it should be disputed that Brown did make the statement that he did.
Is this historical revisionism?
I quote from the Eddowes inquest (Ultimate Jack the Ripper, Evans, Skinner):
Mr Crawford. - Could you say whether the blood spots on the piece of apron produced were of recent origin?
Witness (Dr. Brown) - They are of recent origin. Dr. Phillips brought on a piece of apron which had been found by a policeman in Goulston-street.
Mr Crawford - It is impossible to assert that it is human blood ?
Witness. - Yes, it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence.
Is this all crap? Baloney? Can anyone please inform me if the book in question is in fact fiction?
Obviously if we cannot trust even the written word from Inquests even in this case, we simply must give up and find better ways to spend our time...
And yes, I know you probably will not answer Chris, but you see I really can't stand when even the facts (as best as we know them) simply does not mean a thing in a discussion. I have no problem whatsoever with my opinions being challenged. I was waiting for you to challenge them. Instead we got what we got.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on September 16, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 287
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 3:47 pm: |
|
Julie,
JACK IN THE BOX!
LOL
No offense taken whatsoever! But you do realize my "Something the girls don't like" was actually from a witness statement. Someone actually said that, scaring the wits out of two hookers (if memory serves) It might not have been Jack, but it certainly was one creepy guy.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 288
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
And, since we actually discussed doing some experiments to settle the question of oozing/non oozing bodyparts prior to the recent debacle of words, is anyone up to the task?
It would certainly be more productive than thinking about it
I'm afraid I dont even know someone who knows a friend of a friend of a butcher. Perhaps some of us do?
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
